STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HYDE
2017 OK 59
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Martha Lynne Hyde, admitted to the Oklahoma Bar in 2012, was sanctioned by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Northern & Eastern Districts of Oklahoma) via an Agreed Judgment and Agreed Order that suspended her from practicing in those bankruptcy courts for five years following numerous sanction motions alleging frivolous, vexatious filings and threats of criminal prosecution.
- The Bankruptcy Court matters arose from Hyde's representation of Stephen Lynch in attempts to vacate an earlier bankruptcy compromise and from a subsequent adversary proceeding that was dismissed with prejudice. Defendants moved for sanctions under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 and other grounds.
- Hyde agreed to a settlement roughly a week before a scheduled sanctions hearing, resulting in the Agreed Judgment and Agreed Order; no trial transcript exists from which to contest factual findings.
- Hyde reported the bankruptcy suspension to the Oklahoma Bar and the Bar initiated reciprocal summary disciplinary proceedings under Rule 7.7, RGDP, which treats a foreign adjudication (certified order) as prima facie evidence of misconduct. Hyde did not request a hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether reciprocal discipline was appropriate, evaluated Hyde’s arguments that the bankruptcy sanction was a settlement (not adjudication) and that the sanction had not been referred to the District’s disciplinary committee, and found multiple violations of Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, bringing frivolous claims, fairness in discovery, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a bankruptcy court’s agreed judgment/order can support reciprocal discipline under Rule 7.7 | The Bar: the certified Agreed Judgment/Order constitutes prima facie evidence of misconduct and supports discipline | Hyde: the order was a settlement/consent judgment encouraged by the judge, not an adjudication, so it cannot trigger Rule 7.7 reciprocal discipline | Court: An agreement-approved court judgment is adjudicatory for Rule 7.7 purposes and may support reciprocal discipline |
| Whether the absence of a referral to the Federal District’s disciplinary committee defeats reciprocal discipline | The Bar: referral is not required; the bankruptcy order itself suffices as adjudication under Rule 7.7(b) | Hyde: because the sanction was not referred/confirmed by disciplinary arm, it is not disciplinary adjudication | Court: Referral to the disciplinary committee is not a prerequisite; the bankruptcy order may form the basis for reciprocal discipline |
| Scope of issues Oklahoma Court may revisit when foreign tribunal record lacks a transcript | The Bar: Rule 7.7(b) limits review to the certified documents; respondent may only submit limited evidence to explain or mitigate | Hyde: lack of a trial transcript prevents relitigation and limits the Court’s ability to assess factual findings | Court: The Court will not relitigate facts beyond the certified documents/transcripts; Hyde may submit mitigation evidence but cannot reopen the foreign court’s fact-finding |
| Appropriate discipline in light of the foreign sanction and Hyde’s circumstances | The Bar: consider foreign five-year bankruptcy suspension and misconduct to determine adequate state discipline | Hyde: mitigators (health issues, new lawyer, first client, remorse, employer support) and severity of five-year bankruptcy suspension warrant lesser discipline | Court: Foreign five-year suspension is a significant mitigating factor but does not preclude additional state discipline; imposed six-month suspension plus participation in Lawyers Helping Lawyers (dissent would have imposed two years) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Tweedy, 52 P.3d 1003 (Okla. 2000) (guided proportional discipline where federal sanctions were significant mitigating factor)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Heinen, 60 P.3d 1018 (Okla. 2002) (treatment of consent judgments in reciprocal disciplinary context)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wintory, 350 P.3d 131 (Okla. 2015) (scope of review in Rule 7.7 when foreign record is limited)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Oliver, 369 P.3d 1074 (Okla. 2016) (reciprocal discipline based on bankruptcy court sanctions and importance of notice/opportunity to be heard)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Allford, 152 P.3d 190 (Okla. 2006) (Court’s responsibility to re-examine record de novo in attorney discipline matters)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wilburn, 142 P.3d 420 (Okla. 2006) (nondelegable duty of the Court to determine violations and appropriate discipline)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Leonard, 367 P.3d 498 (Okla. 2016) (confirms Court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction and de novo review standard)